capital factors, such as education. Finally, one can determine whether the variation across immigrant groups within the United States is due to home country
variables, i.e., home country male and female LFPR. If these home country variables are a contributing factor, it seems more likely that ‘‘culture’’ or ‘‘tastes’’
play a role in explaining cross-country variation in gender gaps in LFPR.
6
I begin in Section 2 by describing the data used in the study. I then assess the role of two factors, human capital and culture, in explaining differences in the
gender gap in LFPR across first generation immigrant groups in the United States, in Section 3. In order to determine whether cultural factors have a greater effect on
first generation than on second-and-higher generation immigrants, in Section 4, I examine the determinants of the gender gap in LFPR for second-and-higher
generation immigrants.
7
Section 5 concludes.
2. Data
The data set employed for the ‘‘host’’ country analysis is the 1990 U.S. Census 5 public use Microdata file. This data set is ideal because it includes detailed
Ž variables on labor market outcomes
e.g., employment status, wages, weeks .
Ž .
worked , home country groups e.g., ancestry, place of birth, race , and demo- Ž
. graphics e.g., age, region, year of arrival, education, marital status and the large
sample size allows one to obtain reasonably precise results for a large number of different home country groups.
The sample includes individuals between the ages 25 and 54. Individuals who were currently enrolled in school, both full-time and part-time, were excluded
from the sample. Further, the sample excludes first generation immigrants born abroad of U.S. born parents.
Because I am interested in the role home country variables play in explaining variation in the gender gap in LFPR across home country groups in the United
States, I need to ensure that the home country groups in the United States are as closely aligned as possible with the country of origin. Two approaches were used
to ensure this alignment. For first generation immigrants — individuals born outside of the United States — an individual’s home country is based on place of
birth. For second-and-higher generation immigrants — individuals born inside the United States — primary ancestry is used to determine an individual’s ‘‘home’’
6
A similar methodology is used in my earlier work to examine why cross-country variation in the Ž
. gender wage gap exists Antecol, 2000 .
7
Ž .
Blau 1992 argues that, for a number of reasons — such as length of time away from the home country and length of time to adapt to economic conditions and opportunities in the home country —
culture should have a greater effect on first generation than second-and-higher generation immigrants.
country. Second-and-higher generation immigrants who reported multiple ances- Ž
.
8
tries i.e., primary and secondary ancestry were excluded from the sample. Because the United States consists primarily of immigrants and their descendants,
anyone who reported ‘‘American’’ as their primary ancestry was excluded from the sample.
Based on the above criteria, for first generation immigrants, I restrict the sample to 72 home country groups because these are the most detailed groups that
I can make comparable across first generation immigrants and home countries, with large enough cell sizes.
9
This leaves a first generation immigrant sample size of 201,447 males and 207,421 females. For a list of the home country groups see
Table 1. For second-and-higher generation immigrants, I am only able to identify 34 of the 72 home country groups due to small cell sizes. This is likely a result of
the fact that immigration to the United States for many immigrant groups is a very recent phenomenon. This leaves a second-and-higher generation immigrant sample
size of 873,184 males and 785,588 females. For a list of the home country groups see Table 3.
Home country data on LFPR are from the ILO Yearbook of Labour Statistics, various years.
10
The home country LFPR, with some exceptions, are based on 1990 data for individuals between the ages 25 and 54.
11
There are differences across countries in the way home country LFPR are measured. In particular, there is cross-country variation in the definitions used,
i.e., for the employed and the unemployed, and in the groups covered, such as the armed forces and members of religious orders.
12
Further, there exist differences in the methods of collection, classification, and tabulation of data across countries,
8
Ž .
The exceptions are individuals who reported multiple UK e.g., Welsh and Scottish ancestries or Ž
. multiple USSR ancestries e.g., Estonian and Lithuanian .
9
For both first generation and second-and-higher generation immigrants, each cell must consist of at least 300 observations.
10
Note the following exceptions: data for Belgium are from OECD Labour Force Statistics 1972–1992; and data for Syria and Lebanon are from UN Arab Women in ESCWA Member States,
Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia.
11
Note the following exceptions: data for Afghanistan are from 1979; data for Belize are from 1994; data for Cuba, Grenada, and Poland are from 1988; data for Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, Greece,
Honduras, Jordan, Peru, South Africa, and Syria are from 1991; data for Guatemala, Indonesia, USSR, and Vietnam are from 1989; data for Guyana and Iraq are from 1987; data for India are from 1981;
data for Iran and Nigeria are from 1986; data for Lebanon are from 1970; data for Belgium are for individuals aged 15 to 64; data for Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, India, Lebanon, Nicaragua, Syria,
Thailand, and Uruguay are for individuals aged 25 to 59; data for Cuba and Honduras are for individuals aged 20 to 59; and data for Venezuela are for individuals aged 25 to 64.
12
For example, a referee has pointed out that the gender gap in LFPR in Sweden may be understated because women on maternity leave in Sweden are counted as in the labor force.
for example, how family workers, who work in family enterprises, are counted varies across countries.
13
3. The gender gap in LFPR
